There is an article in the new issue of the International & Comparative Law Quarterly (October 2006; Vol. 55, No. 4) by Reid Mortenson (TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland) on "Homing Devices in Choice of Tort Law: Australian, British and Canadian Approaches". The abstract reads:

Since 1994, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia have adoptednew choice of law rules for cross-border torts that, in differentways, centre on the application of the law of the place wherethe tort occurred (the lex loci delicti). All three countriesabandoned some species of the rule in Phillips v Eyre, whichrequired some reference to the law of the forum (the lex fori)as well as the lex loci delicti. However, predictions were madethat, where possible, courts in these countries would continueto show a strong inclination to apply the lex fori in cross-bordertort cases—and would use a range of homing devices todo so. A comprehensive survey and analysis of the cases thathave been decided under the Australian, British and Canadianlex loci delicti regimes suggests that courts in these countriesdo betray a homing instinct, but one that has actually beentightly restrained by appeal courts. Where application of thelex fori was formally allowed by use of a ‘flexible exception’in Canada and the United Kingdom, this has been contained bycourts of first appeal. Indeed, only the continuing characterizationof the assessment of damages as a procedural question in Canadaand the United Kingdom, seems to remain as a significant homingdevice for courts in these countries.

For those with online access to the ICLQ, the full article can be downloaded from here.

There is also a shorter article by Richard Frimpong Oppong (PhD candidate, University of British Columbia) in the latest issue of the ICLQ on "Private International Law and the African Economic Community: A Plea for Greater Attention". The full article, again for those with a subscription, can be found here.